Oscar cop hammered
The police detective investigating Reeva Steenkamp's death admits he missed key evidence - a spent bullet in the toilet bowl - and that he might have contaminated the crime scene.
Save & Share
Related News
In a day of fierce legal blows, the team defending Olympic hero Oscar Pistorius tried to unravel and unnerve the state's key witness, punching holes in his testimony with hard-hitting questions.
Last night, an officer who had contact with Pistorius, 26, at the Brooklyn police station, where he is being held, said the athlete had expressed confidence following yesterday's proceedings.
"He's convinced he'll be out by the weekend and back on the track before the end of the year."
Pistorius had appeared before Pretoria chief magistrate Desmond Nair on the second day of his bail hearing, which continues today.
The internationally renowned double-amputee athlete is in the dock for allegedly deliberately murdering his 29-year-old girlfriend, a law graduate and model, in the early hours of Valentine's Day.
He says he shot her by accident, thinking she was an intruder.
Steenkamp was shot in a hip, near her right ear and in an elbow while locked in the toilet of Pistorius's R5-million Pretoria East security complex home.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel yesterday outlined the case against Pistorius, saying two different neighbours had heard arguments for nearly an hour coming from his home before the shooting.
These were allegedly followed by screams, two gunshots, a 17-minute silence and then more shots.
A discrepancy the state had with Pistorius's version of the shooting was how three cartridges landed in the bathroom and one in the bathroom passage.
In his affidavit, read in court on Tuesday, Pistorius said he fired four shots into the toilet door, believing that an intruder was inside.
This was after he had rushed to the bathroom on his stumps to investigate a noise.
"We believe he was moving into the bathroom firing . there was no escape for Steenkamp," the lead detective in the case, WarrantOfficer Hilton Botha, testified yesterday. He said the trajectory of the bullets suggested Pistorius was, in fact, wearing his prosthetic limbs when he opened fire.
The state alleges that all the shots were fired from a height downwards through the door, towards the toilet, on which Steenkamp was sitting.
Leading Botha through his testimony, prosecutor Nel cast doubt on why, if Pistorius felt vulnerable on his stumps as claimed, he would have approached "the danger" in the bathroom.
"If I was scared and my girlfriend was with me, I would have tried to protect her first . and if I didn't need to go towards the bathroom and could have gone straight out the room, I would have," said Botha.
Pistorius claims that, on realising it was Steenkamp he had shot, he phoned the estate's administrator and paramedics for help.
But according to the police, none of the four cellphones found in his home had been used that morning.
In fierce cross-examination, advocate Barry Roux tried to discredit Botha. He told the investigating officer there was a fifth cellphone on the premises - which Pistorius had used to call paramedics - but that the police did not ask his client for it.
"Instead of verifying information, you introduce untested evidence . there is proof Oscar phoned Netcare and the guards, who heard him weeping . You know the testosterone (your word for steroids) was herbal .
"You contaminated the crime scene . not intentionally . but you forgot your protective shoe coverings.'' Botha conceded this.
Roux continued: "Our forensic experts found a 'spent bullet' in the toilet bowl, which you missed .
"Reeva's bladder was empty when she died, evidence consistent with claims she went to the toilet .
It is significant . the truth is, you couldn't find anything inconsistent with Pistorius's account or [that] indicates premeditated murder, correct? Surely a little measure of common sense would have been warranted, but you didn't think, did you?"
In response, Botha said the police were confident of their investigation and were awaiting final reports on ballistics, forensics and pathology matters, which would, along with crime-scene analysis documents, shore up their case.
Nel, redirecting Botha, suggested that Pistorius's affidavit provided more questions than answers. He said to the detective: "You have not been provided with all the evidence have you? There was a fifth cellphone . but you do not have it do you? Is this not strange? Surely if his lawyers were as helpful as they claim you would have everything you require?"
Botha replied that he was battling to obtain evidence, including the "mysterious fifth cellphone".
"We found a holster, a safe with 38 .38 special unlicensed rounds of ammunition, four cellphones . [on] none of which calls [had been] made to police, complex security guards or paramedics . drugs believed to be steroids, syringes, needles and a cricket bat with blood splatters .
"We were suspicious . on top of this there was a memory stick containing details of an overseas bank account on it, which his brother and lawyer took . We are concerned Pistorius is a flight risk . he has assets he has not declared . an offshore bank account and a house in Italy," he said.
Botha told the court that, in 2009, he had questioned Pistorius at his home on a charge of assault, which was later dropped.
The athlete's uncle Arnold Pistorius told eNews Channel Africa the family was confident the truth would prevail.
SHARE YOUR OPINION
If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.LukaMahlangu
Posted 91 days agoBEWARE OF TECHNICALITIES
The police detective investigating Reeva Steenkamp's death admits he missed key evidence - a spent bullet in the toilet bowl - and that he might have contaminated the crime scene.
What is this signaling? This attests to what the former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) junior detective once said.
The high profile murder case of Reeva Steenkamp by Oscar Pistorious is no exception to the celebrity murder case of O.J. Simpson who was presumed to have murdered his ex-wife Nicole Brown-Simpson and her boyfriend Ronald (Ron) Goldman.
The title of the book is “Murder in Brentwood” composed by the former junior detective called Mark Fuhrman. I call Mark Fuhrman the second best detective the world has ever produced after the South African celebrity (legendary) detective Oom Piet Byleveld- stationed in Johannesburg.
He is the one who traced Donovan Moodley – the killer of Leigh Lewis. He traced the celebrity robbery dubbed Siyabuswa Heist in Transit that took place at Moteti in 1992/93/94/96 where Coin Security (men) were murdered and undisclosed amount of cash seized. He brought the men responsible to book. They are serving incomprehensive jail sentences.
Asked how many murder (serial) cases had he detected since he became a detective in 1972 – he simply says “I CAN’T REMEMBER.” He caught criminals like my brother’s cat that destroyed the empire of rats from his warehouse. In honor of him, my brother, Jacob named the cat “Napoleon Bonaparte” – the French Monarchy. By world’s standard – oom Byl (uncle Axe) is said to be one of the ONLY five best world’s detectives.
I call oom Byl (as he is affectionately known in the criminal investigation fraternity or formerly called CID) the “celebrity detective – the detective with passion.” You get his book from Exclusives Books titled “Piet Byleveld.” As at today he has officially retired but still active by popular demand.
Back to Mark Fuhrman. Murder in Brentwood is the account of the events around the double murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson and her boyfriend Ron Goldman. Orenthal James Simpson (is presumed) to have orchestrated and dramatized the murder so as to get away with it. And he got away with it. Nevertheless there is/was prima facie evidence that indeed he carried out the murder of Nicole and Ron simultaneously but Mark Fuhrman (who was a junior detective by then and had limited powers of detective) was subjected to cross questioning which cost his job.
The senior detectives in the O.J Simpson’s case bungled/messed up the case and kept Mark Fuhrman to account for alleging O.J was the prime suspect in the case.
The saddest statement he makes in this book (Murder in Brendwood) he says and I quote, “ if someone would ask me and say what have you learned in your twenty years of being a detective, I would say - in my 20 years of being a detective I have learned that someone CAN get away with murder.”
With little or without any support from the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Deportment) Mark Fuhrman was made to stand trial – sued by the legal team of O.J. Simpson.
Mark Fuhrman was the first detective to arrive at the scene of murder – at Nicole’s house- just after midnight of that day (after obviously having been summoned by someone). He found two bodies lying dead. From the body of Nicole he noticed some drops of blood leading to the gate. On the handle of the gate he noticed that someone opened the gate with bloody hands. And the (trace) of drops of blood disappeared on the roadside next to the gate – which gave concrete evidence that the culprit must have gotten into a car and drove off.
There was hand glove in the compound. It looked like someone took it out to give attention to his sore finger. The cut on the glove found on the scene suggested that Nicole attempted to stab O.J. with a knife but O.J. blocked it but the knife pierced his middle finger. By some useless standards of LAPD the DNA samples/evidence taken from the glove and from Simpson went missing. So Mark Fuhrman had to testify without tangible evidence.
As a matter of fact – given the history of quarrelsome/difficult relationship between O.J. and Nicole (Nicole who had died then) O.J. Simpson became the prime suspect. Mark Fuhrman drove to O.J. Simpson’s house. He found a car belonging to one Car Rental company parked in a way that suggested the driver had parked it hastily (with no consideration for fitting it in the parking bay) and got into the house quickly. Tracing the owner of the car in question – it was discovered O.J. had rented it the previous days. And there were samples of blood in and around the driver’s door of the rented car.
Back at Nicole Brown-Simpson’s house there was a black leather glove- with stains of blood. O.J. had a fresh cut on the finger that corresponded with finger of the glove found at Nicole’s house. And the glove was bloody. Another glove (black one of same colour and textile as the one found at the scene of murder) was found thrown out of the window at Simpson’s place.
From where the car was parked – there were blood stains leading from the car into Simpson’s house. At 2 am Simpson was awake. Asked why was he awake at that time he said he was watching movie- obviously the Tv was on.
Having said all these and more –all this concrete evidence by the standards of LAPD this evidence was NOT compatible with standards set forth. Mark Fuhrman was order by SENIOR police detective to leave some fundamental evidence on the scene. At some point the Magistrate would ask Mark Fuhrman to produce evidence. He would say, “On instructions of the senior detectives” he left the evidence on the scene of murder. An intelligent JUNIOR detective became a laughing stock because of stupid and ignorant SENIOR detective.
The defense team of O.J. Simpson took full advantage of this miscarriage. The defense capitalized on the technicalities and stupid mistakes that Mark Fuhrman was compelled to do by his seniors. At the end - Mark stood trial and became laughing stock. On account of financial constraints he could oppose his orchestrated guiltiness. But Mark Fuhrman never stopped there – he composed the bestselling book (Murder in Brentwood) out of his ordeal.
I have therefore started seeing cracks in the case of Oscar Pistorius.
The lesson I draw from this scenario is that – not every senior knows the difference between what is good and bad. Not every so called senior or commander really knows the difference between what is useless and what is important. Some seniors are more stupid than their juniors are. They have mastery of shifting the blame over to their juniors when things turn sour. Keep it in mind that I don’t take any body’s side in all these cases but am just interest in its episode (movie) part of it.
Cheers